Im sure you are right in the game play, my complaint is that i have played basic settings for years now and pretty much only those settings thinking its a good base indicator because everyone plays those settings for sure. these setting i dont think alot of people have ever played so just jumping into a ranking system with obscure settings is a little weird to me, and to be honest i dont much like the settings so i dont want to play 50 games practicing it so im not terrible with them.
I disagree with the whole picks aspect of it too, if you just look at the history as soon as you get your starting spots and look at where the wastelands are again you can pretty much for sure tell where the other guy is with these setting., With basic settings i generally have a good idea but i have seen a few strategies out there that work pretty good, not to mention the secondary picks strategy in basic settings.Its your game to do as you wish with and im sure you understand it better than me so i dont doubt your reasoning, i just wish it was different.

not entirely on subject, I'd like to point out the ladder settings are the same as the first two auto game settings, which are accessble to everyone..

In regular earth I rarely get picks 1-3 and I generally know where my opponent is. In Medium earth, I get picks 1-3 almost 50% of the time and have no clue where my opponent is. I can generally guess one or two spots, but rarely do I know all 3.

I think Medium Earth is fine. It's a balanced map. If we had played 300 games on Medium Earth instead of normal earth we may feel differently about it. I know I'm a much better player on the normal earth map with strategic settings then I am on Medium Earth, and I tend to prefer Earth games due to this familiarity and practice, so I too, like pretty much everyone else feels more comfortable on the Earth map.

With that being said, I like that the ladder is on Medium Earth, even though it isn't my strongest map. It's a learning experience, a chance to try and attempt to excel at something new and gives newer players a better fighting chance.

I like Medium Earth much better for the reasons Randy stated. It's much more balanced and interesting for the variety it poses. Since I plan to play a lot of ladder games this is much superior to Earth IMO.

I surely need to get to know the map better though. I'm making a lot of mistakes and I'll pretend to just blame them on my lack of Medium Earth familiarity... :)

Ok i have a question and a complaint. first the question, Fizzer could you make a template for these ladder settings so i can practice these settings so I can get to a point where im not losing to people i have no business losing to? That brings me to my complaint, by making these settings the base for the ladder you have pretty much changed the base game setting that everyone is wanting to play. All the players i want to play with are only interested in playing these settings now and i cant help feel i just gave $30 to have the game changed to something i dont enjoy.Im more than happy to give the $30 for over 2 years of goodtimes, i am just disappointed that it seems Im no longer going to enjoy playing and that one of the things i was looking forward to the most isnt what i thought it would be.

I am not pissed off about losing to bad players or calling anyone bad. i am disappointed that I am losing every single game with these settings, and before i would consider myself a decent player not just at my exact settings but most of the games i was invited to.I wouldnt choose to play these settings and never have played them and now its the ranking system for warlight?

I cant remember who said it evens out the new and old players, whats the point of being an old player if when there finally is a rating system the game is changed on you so you are worse than players you would usually beat every game on the old settings. "Oh you love playing hockey? come play with us." you get there....BAM! tennis! lol

Im not saying do something about it. i am just letting you know that someone who has really enjoyed the game for a long time now doesnt so much anymore.May i suggest you do a poll or something, this game has become popular as a pretty close replication of another game and the changes you have made here has changed the base game play alot.Its like going to play "other game" with the crazy relatives that just makes there own rules. I may be the only one who feels this way.

"Fizzer could you make a template for these ladder settings"

There is one, it's called "Strategic 1v1."

Thank you for that i will look a little harder

To go with what crafty said, this setup that Fizzer is using has been the "Strategic 1v1" template setup for a while now. A lot of players have experience playing with it already by joining, creating, or playing in tournaments that use the strategic 1v1 setup.

I can see your perspective--if you aren't familiar with a lot of games played on the Strategic 1v1 map it may seem like he just came out of nowhere with these settings--but I was almost positive he would use these settings for the ladder once he eventually was able to get it started, purely because of the precedent.

I guess I like repetitive games with standard starting spots on a map I know :)

As you can guess from the chokepoints map I made, I'm not that big a fan of the mystery starting spots. I'd be fine with a map where starting spots are fixed and you win or lose based on gameplay (e.g. no fog, limited starting spot options, etc). Hence, the midsize map is a solution in search of a problem for me.

big fan of medium earth and the ladder concept in general. great idea.

duke, i like your idea of standardized starting spots, kind of like chess, but there is a finite number of ways for good players to exercise a skill advantage against each other in warlight, and country selection is one of them. a balanced map is a good place for people to use that skill advantage. i can definitely see why you'd prefer earth if you've played more games on it, though. i hate the earth map for the same reason.

"I'd be fine with a map where starting spots are fixed and you win or lose based on gameplay"

But then you are limiting the term gameplay. I think gameplay should include your ability to pick starting postions and your ability to use your limited knowledge to gain an advantage.

oops i kinda repeated bostons post a bit :P

If I may chime in with some scattered thoughts:

first of all Guy I feel your pain. Medium earth takes me completely out of my comfort zone. Even with low luck percentages, the real luck comes with trying to "guess" where you opponent is. Having only 3 picks and 11ish viable options leaves both players in the same predicament. My problem is this: rarely in a war are the opponents completely blind about one another.

I agree with Fizzer on the point that experienced players playing each other got rather predictable. I was good at it but mainly because I was able to device a sure-fire strategy straight away on whether it was more prudent to expand or rush in the crucial opening turns, based on my picks and knowing there 3 picks.

If I had to choose I would choose to leave it the way it is. Although frustrating because I too feel as though I am re-learning the optimal way to play, this has also saved 1 vs 1 from getting stale, and an exciting challenge since Impaller and others who seem to have grasped the map better than I have proven sufficiently to me that it is still more about strategy then it being a coin flip.

Lastly, a suggestion since I think a balance between complete guess-work and predictability may be a nice compromise. I think something easily implemented was if say 3 or 4 countries (randomly) were barred from starting in. This could either mean that it 3 of the Wastelands could automatically be the warlord. Then perhaps an additional wasteland could be added.

I think this would make devising a strategy prior to distribution more important while there would still be enough probable selections that you shouldn't know exactly where your opponent is.

Medium Earth seems to be working well for a balanced game. I was winning a game against Impaller at one point on Medium Earth, so it must give some benefit to the people who don't play as much.

Note: Impaller impaled me and I lost that game.

I like the ladder. I like WL. I like Fizz. I even like 1x1 on medium earth. I just like other 1x1 variations more. I liked large earth, 4 start spots, zero luck, manual picks and +5 cards best for a long time too. Then I got to like strategic 1x1 large earth as well (although with less than 18% luck). I'm sure I'll get to like medium earth more too. It just doesn't lend itself to my style of play as much as other settings.

I think the change to 16% default luck should be made everywhere though. 18% yields apx. 4% odds of a 4x2 or 2x1 failing, which is pivital at the start of a 1x1 game. 16% luck fixes that problem.

> I think the change to 16% default luck should be made everywhere though. 18% yields apx. 4% odds of a 4x2 or 2x1 failing, which is pivital at the start of a 1x1 game. 16% luck fixes that problem.

Funny you mention that - I just realized that myself and changed it to 16% about an hour ago. For some reason I was under the impression that 18% made it guaranteed, but that was incorrect.

Although it's not 4% odds of failing, it's more like 0.09% of failing a 4v2. The change to 16% luck will make it 0%. This will go live in the next release, 1.00.3.

Agreed. Failing a 2 vs 1 is harsh, especially in the opening 3 turns. Thanks for budging the 2% Fizzer.

I saw the change as was noting my heartfelt approval. Imp and I have been privately complaining about 18% luck forever.

2.4*.18 = .432, yielding a range of results from 1.968 to 2.832. The range is .864 and the portion of the range that could result in a 1 is .032. That's 3.7%. BUT, that's only the odds of there being a chance at a 1 result because you would then multiply the 3.7% by the odds of the remainder calculation or 3.2% -- for a cumulative odds result of .1184%. I obviously stopped at the odds of there being a remainder roll at all.

Considering those odds are just a bit better than 1 in a 1000, I'm surprised at how many times I've seen the result -- it happenned to me once today.

I agree with Boston and Ace about pick selection being a huge and important part of game play. As that one small earth tournament that some of us played in taught us...sometimes games with limited options can become basically "solved" and come down to random dice rolls to determine the outcome.

And thank you so much for making the change to 16% luck. Every time a 4x2 or 2x1 attack fails, a kitten dies/angel falls out of heaven/small child gets his Ice Cream Cone stolen/etc.

@Elucidar. Yes, that was a frustrating game for me. Basically was purely a battle of who could expand better and you had the advantage in income by the time we met. If it wasn't for my last ditch effort to punch into India succeeding I believe you would have steamrolled me. Was a close one for sure.

I don't think i have seen a 4v2 fail in the ladder yet.. and not often out of it.. it may have, but i generally account it to that being a high luck game *which sometimes it is*